Trial Discussion Thread #30

[wb180]

That is a lot of speculation not hard evidence. I am about to go to bed so I will address one point.

If he shot her at 3:10, there's no explanation for arterial blood spurts 10 minutes later



Think kinked hose.

You need water (in liquid form) in the kinked hose

 

[Carmelita]

OP's defense requires the judge believe he was 100% sure the person behind the door was an intruder.

He couldn't have been 100% sure it was an intruder because he confirmed that he did not verify that Reeva was still in bed.

He did not know with any certainty that the person behind the door was an intruder, nor did he know if that person had any intention to harm him, and yet he shot four times anyway.

He's asking the court to believe that a woman getting up to use the bath room led him to be 100% certain that his life was in imminent danger. That's ludicrous.

Or he has to admit he wasn't certain his life was in danger, and he killed another human just to be on the safe side.

He did not verify that Reeva was in bed by what standard? His testimony is that he believed 100% that Reeva was in bed. He was 100% wrong, but in his version of that deadly morning Oscar in his own mind had verified that Reeva was in bed through faulty reasoning.

 

[molly333]

If he was 100 percent certain Reeva was in there, he would have stood in front of the door arguing with her and shot her right straight through the door as she stood there talking to him.

The prosecutor set up this scenario---she is standing in front of the door facing you through the door because you are talking to her through the door. Then you shoot her.

The forensics say otherwise. All the bullets were angled from a position where he said he was standing, over by the entrance to the bathroom.

He didn't stand in front of the door because he was afraid the person inside the closet could shoot back.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

You also need a pump that is pumping to cause squirts.

 

[molly333]

You also need a pump that is pumping to cause squirts.

kink in the hose---all you have to do is release pressure by unkinking the hose. The water doesn't have to be turned on, just present in the hose.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

kink in the hose---all you have to do is release pressure by unkinking the hose. The water doesn't have to be turned on, just present in the hose.

Be it a hose with water or be it an artery, if there is no water pressure (in the case of a hose) or heart beating (in the case of an artery) then the liquid will only run out under gravity. It will not spurt out. Causing the distinctive blood pattern seen caused by arterial spurting, as was testified to in this case.


eta: This testimony about the arterial spurt patterns being seen on a downstairs wall have made me question a whole lot of Oscar's story in terms of timing. Because with that head wound Reeva's heart was surely not beating for very long afterwards. Long enough for Oscar to make all his back and forth trips, putting on his prostheses, beating down door to gain access to her, and then he adds another 5 minutes of him just looking at her? And then he picked her up and carried her downstairs with a still beating heart? I don't think so!

I am now back to my original theory that he beat at the door to scare her during a huge argument, then deliberately shot through the door.

 

[G.bng]

Thanks for your post . I didn't know that he had been in jail for 3 years .

No he wasn't in jail 3 years as it only took 2 years between arrest and the signed plea bargain so if any it would be maximum 2 years, but I have found nothing that says he even spent 2 years in Jail. I only ever found 2 articles on the case, both News24, and while in the first dated 14 March 2011 it notes he is in jail from Wednesday that week awaiting to be charged with murder shortly, the second article, which refers to the plea bargain being signed 21 Feb 2013, says nothing about him having spent any more time in in jail than those few days so he could have been that time out on bail. Or maybe someone can direct me to an article that notes his jail time more than that.

 

[molly333]

Be it a hose with water or be it an artery, if there is no water pressure (in the case of a hose) or heart beating (in the case of an artery) then the liquid will only run out under gravity. It will not spurt out. Causing the distinctive blood pattern seen caused by arterial spurting, as was testified to in this case.

I don't know what to say.

The pathologist said she died immediately from the head wound.

 

[nastasya]

That is a lot of speculation not hard evidence. I am about to go to bed so I will address one point.

If he shot her at 3:10, there's no explanation for arterial blood spurts 10 minutes later



Think kinked hose.

Why would I think kinked hose?

Reeva's right arm was nearly amputated. Her brain had a hole blown through it. Her right hip was blown apart.

There was no kinked hose.

Is the "kinked hose" explanation another theory put forth by OP's defense? I missed that.

If OP's version wasn't a lie there would be huge pools of blood in the bathroom. Ten minutes after blowing her brains out there would be no arterial blood spurts. The heart would stop beating. There would be no blood pressure due to loss of massive amounts of blood.

Attached is a photo of the man shot during a protest in Thailand. This is how much blood was on the ground within 30 seconds of him being shot in the head.

 

[Carmelita]

Be it a hose with water or be it an artery, if there is no water pressure (in the case of a hose) or heart beating (in the case of an artery) then the liquid will only run out under gravity. It will not spurt out. Causing the distinctive blood pattern seen caused by arterial spurting, as was testified to in this case.


eta: This testimony about the arterial spurt patterns being seen on a downstairs wall have made me question a whole lot of Oscar's story in terms of timing. Because with that head wound Reeva's heart was surely not beating for very long afterwards. Long enough for Oscar to make all his back and forth trips, putting on his prostheses, beating down door to gain access to her, and then he adds another 5 minutes of him just looking at her? And then he picked her up and carried her downstairs with a still beating heart? I don't think so!

I am now back to my original theory that he beat at the door to scare her during a huge argument, then deliberately shot through the door.

No one expects the horrific details of that morning to be concise and accurate down to minutes. A kinked artery that had pressure built up could have caused the arterial spray without a pumping heart.

 

[molly333]

Why would I think kinked hose?

Reeva's right arm was nearly amputated. Her brain had a hole blown through it. Her right hip was blown apart.

There was no kinked hose.

Is the "kinked hose" explanation another theory put forth by OP's defense? I missed that.

If OP's version wasn't a lie there would be huge pools of blood in the bathroom. Ten minutes after blowing her brains out there would be no arterial blood spurts. The heart would stop beating. There would be no blood pressure due to loss of massive amounts of blood.

Attached is a photo of the man shot during a protest in Thailand. This is how much blood was on the ground within 30 seconds of him being shot in the head.

So the State's pathologist was wrong?

She died immediately, he said, maybe one or two breaths after that head wound.

 

[nastasya]

He did not verify that Reeva was in bed by what standard? His testimony is that he believed 100% that Reeva was in bed. He was 100% wrong, but in his version of that deadly morning Oscar in his own mind had verified that Reeva was in bed through faulty reasoning.

Again, OP's defense requires the judge believe he was 100% sure the person behind the door was an intruder.

He couldn't have been 100% sure it was an intruder because he confirmed that he did not verify that Reeva was still in bed.

ver·i·fy
ˈverəˌfī/Submit
verb
1.
make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate,

He did not demonstrate that it was true Reeva was in bed. He did not verify Reeva was not in the bathroom. He assumed she wasn't. Big difference.

He did not know with any certainty that the person behind the door was an intruder, nor did he know if that person had any intention to harm him, and yet he shot four times anyway.

Therefore:

1. He's asking the court to believe that a woman getting up to use the bath room led him to be 100% certain that his life was in imminent danger. That's ludicrous.

OR

2. He has to admit he wasn't certain his life was in danger, and he killed another human just to be on the safe side.


So I guess you're agreeing with version 1 - that OP's such a danger to the world that the sound of a woman getting up to use the bathroom was enough to make him 100% certain his life was in danger, then shoot and kill the person using the bathroom.

There are only two choices.

 

[nastasya]

If he was 100 percent certain Reeva was in there, he would have stood in front of the door arguing with her and shot her right straight through the door as she stood there talking to him.

The prosecutor set up this scenario---she is standing in front of the door facing you through the door because you are talking to her through the door. Then you shoot her.

The forensics say otherwise. All the bullets were angled from a position where he said he was standing, over by the entrance to the bathroom.

He didn't stand in front of the door because he was afraid the person inside the closet could shoot back.

How do you know any of this? What he would have done? What he was afraid of? Because OP told you???? :floorlaugh:

 

[G.bng]

I'm hesitant to admit this, because I've never followed a case where my viewpoint/beliefs ran against the prevailing tone of the forum members.

I hope no one will scoff at me, because I'm sincere: I don't believe that the judge will convict on anything more that culpable homicide. Despite the untruths that he's been caught up in, I think that the case for negligence is the only thing that's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO, with utter respect to all. I enjoy reading your theories and thoughts - every post brings something to the forum, and it's a great resource.

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

No worry SC, your not alone and I feel the same as I probably shouldn't follow here from some of the comments I've seen because I'm in your boat to date. IMO, even if OP shot knowing it was Reeva, and I'm not 90% convinced he did, I think Masipa has too many loose reasonable doubts around to convict on murder... unless of course by transferred intent via the burglar showing a reckless disregard for human life whoever it belonged to; still a possibility I think, but not sure it is that likely, but imo it is still a maybe.

 

[nastasya]

So the State's pathologist was wrong?

She died immediately, he said, maybe one or two breaths after that head wound.

What do you think? She had a bullet through her head and her brains were blown out the back of her head.

Do you understand how the human body works?

She stopped breathing immediately is what the pathologist said. Blood began shooting out of the arteries that were severed in her right arm and her hip. The heart still pumps blood until there is not enough blood pressure to get oxygen to the heart, then it stops too.

OP's story is that he blew her brains out of her head at about 3:05, and at 3:23 he carried her down the stairs. After 18 minutes with a severed right arm, an exploded hip, and head blown out the back, she would have bled out and not had arterial blood splatter on the walls and sofa beneath the stairs.

Do you think her heart was still beating nearly 20 minutes after having her head blown out and her right arm nearly amputated?

Can you explain how 20 minutes after being shot there would be arterial blood splatter, how her heart would still be beating, and why there were no large pools of blood in the bathroom?opcorn:

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

Serious question

Can one have PTSD when they didn't suffer a traumatic event that someone/something else caused? Like with OP, there was no intruder. No one pointed a gun to his face, or a knife, or threatened his life. So can he really suffer from PTSD?

PTSD is a real illness which many people genuinely have. However:

I've worked clinically in, studied, and researched mental health for many years. There are a number of now popular diagnoses which IMO are highly overused. PTSD and Bipolar (particularly Bipolar II) are just 2 of those. IMO they are often used as an excuse for bad behaviour - ie "It not my fault; it's the illness". Some clinicians in the industry actually say that "the more a person bangs on about having such a diagnosis, the less likely they are to have the illness".

It's not uncommon to see people attribute their PTSD to what, for most of us, are "normal", but tragic parts of life - eg death of a loved one, a partner walking out, non-fatal car accidents etc. In fairness to OP, stuffing up his own life would be very traumatic for him.

Another feature I've observed in highly questionable diagnoses of PTSD is the presence of secondary gain - ie the benefits of the diagnosis for that person.

They can include:

• extended paid leave from work,
• becoming entitled to a disability pension,
• a medical excuse for bad behaviour (including illegal acts),
• financial payout for the anguish suffered as a result of the traumatic event,
• extra care and attention from those around you (until they get sick of it)
• an excuse to not do things that you don't want to do
  
• etc etc
  
  This by no means text book, just MOO.

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emz73 View Post
Thanks Kate. Quite pleased with myself for remembering stuff!

Why not.
You're not a geologist.

Omg, you're discovered the key to memory loss! I'm not a geologist either
but I do love collecting rocks, minerals, gems...
it's the rocks, right? :scared::desert:

 

[steveml]

PTSD is a real illness which many people genuinely have. However:

I've worked clinically in, studied, and researched mental health for many years. There are a number of now popular diagnoses which IMO are highly overused. PTSD and Bipolar (particularly Bipolar II) are just 2 of those. IMO they are often used as an excuse for bad behaviour - ie "It not my fault; it's the illness". Some clinicians in the industry actually say that "the more a person bangs on about having such a diagnosis, the less likely they are to have the illness".

It's not uncommon to see people attribute their PTSD to what, for most of us, are "normal", but tragic parts of life - eg death of a loved one, a partner walking out, non-fatal car accidents etc. In fairness to OP, stuffing up his own life would be very traumatic for him.

Another feature I've observed in highly questionable diagnoses of PTSD is the presence of secondary gain - ie the benefits of the diagnosis for that person.

They can include:

• extended paid leave from work,
• becoming entitled to a disability pension,
• a medical excuse for bad behaviour (including illegal acts),
• financial payout for the anguish suffered as a result of the traumatic event,
• extra care and attention from those around you (until they get sick of it)
• an excuse to not do things that you don't want to do
• etc etc
  
  This by no means text book, just MOO.

• 
  
  BBM
  
  One of the major problems for people suffering with mental illness is their reluctance to be forthcoming about the illness due to stigma and taboo.
  
  In many cases those suffering only confide in a loved one or a small circle of family/friends. In a few, but still too many, they confide in nobody until it's too late.
  
  The fact that they tend not to bang on about it is part of the problem.
  
  There will be always be cases of people faking it as with any illness, but I can't believe that there is any evidence or case-study showing that these diagnosis are highly overused.

 

[shane13]

What did they say to each other--in Oscar-Speak?

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

BBM

One of the major problems for people suffering with mental illness is their reluctance to be forthcoming about the illness due to stigma and taboo.

In many cases those suffering only confide in a loved one or a small circle of family/friends. In a few, but still too many, they confide in nobody until it's too late.

The fact that they tend not to bang on about it is part of the problem.

There will be always be cases of people faking it as with any illness, but I can't believe that there is any evidence or case-study showing that these diagnosis are highly overused.

The point that I was making certainly fits with your perception that people with a mental illness don't "bang on about it". That's what I was getting at. That's why it is particularly striking when people use their diagnosis very frequently and publically - often not to get help, but for a range of other reasons.

People with serious mental illness are stigmatised and to mention that you have an illness such as schizophrenia is often used against you. Whether we like it or not, some diagnoses are regarded as much more socially acceptable than others - eg PTSD and Bipolar. Courageous soldiers and heroes can have PTSD. Many people can real off a list of Celebrities including movie stars who have had or have Bipolar. How often do we hear of celebrities having schizophrenia?

The veracity of such diagnostic categories would be very difficult to asses. Case studies have limited applicability. IMO research funds are best spent on improving the health and quality of life of people with a mental illness.